1411
Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses Kamala Harris: ‘I will always be an American before I am a Republican’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
1411 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19239 readers
3349 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not gonna pretend the clemency was an ethical move - though there is a lot to question about that plea agreement - I will say that if you think this is "as crooked as they come" you are woefully sheltered.
Cutting the sentence in half of a political-rival-turned-ally's son is messed up but the hyperbole of calling it "the most crooked you can be" is absurd
I think you meant to say "cutting the sentence in half of a crony's son who brutally and unambiguously stabbed an innocent man to death at the literal last minute of your time in office so there are effectively no consequences"?
Can you read? Did you read the article? Unambiguous my ass. There is literally witness testimony that says it was the other assailant that stabbed the victim. Seriously, read the article that was linked so you don't sound quite so willfully ignorant
Also calling Nunez a crony of Schwarzenegger is hilarious given their history.
Okay, I want to clarify two things:
Only one of the witnesses said Jeff was the one who landed the blow on Luis in the left ventricle, so what you have then is instead the sum of the witness evidence. However, if you and your friend come up and try to start stabbing me and the person next to you just happens to be the one whose knife gets to me first, you've effectively stabbed me to death. Just like if you and your friend start opening fire intentionally trying to hit me but your friend's bullet just happens to hit me first, you've still shot me to death; that's again even assuming that one witness out of several was the correct one. This never went to trial to figure out whose knife actually pierced Luis' heart thanks to the plea bargain, but with the 7/11 evidence of them getting gasoline to burn their clothes and weapons, it's unambiguous they were both responsible.
Nunez was Schwarzenegger's crony; did you not read the entire-ass section of the article called "Foes to friends" that goes over exactly how this happened? Nunez started by derailing Schwarzenegger's agenda, but after this, they began working closely together to make sure legislation made its way through – basic politicking: I scratch your back, you scratch mine. If Nunez wasn't a crony, why did Schwarzenegger do this for Nunez specifically, one is led to wonder? And why did he do it at the absolute last minute of his term? If they were bitter political rivals, it could be seen as an act of good faith among the public rather than the shallow, naked cronyism that it was.
Honestly, at this point, I don't even care, because the main point I was trying to make stands either way: this is not, by an stretch of the imagination, as crooked as they come. Seriously. You must see that at this point. Like, the fact that we're even having this discussion over the nuances of the case is itself proof that it's not the worst form of crooked.
Do I really need to start listing off the people throughout history who have been far more crooked? Or can you just admit you were being hyperbolic and exaggerating for effect?
Lmao what? The fact that you're trying to muddy the waters over Nunez's son stabbing a man to death by deliberately misunderstanding the case makes this "nuanced"?
I can do that too: Rod Blagojevich actually wasn't super corrupt because he accidentally tripped and fell on a button that made him try to sell Obama's Senate seat. He was impeached unanimously, but I think he actually just appointed Roland Burris because Burris was such a great politician. His crime wasn't unambiguous, and the fact that Trump pardoned him means that there's obviously more to the story than you're letting on. Please come discuss these points with me that I may argue you pointing out how stupid and wrong what I've said is itself constitutes nuance.
I see that you won't even bother trying to address the initial point of my reply so I'm done here. I'm not trying to debate the merits of a case that never even went to trial, when the whole point of my reply was to simply point out that you were being outrageously hyperbolic
Address the actual complaint or gtfo.
You were the one trying to muddy the waters by saying there was "a lot to question about that plea agreement" and then going on to misrepresent the facts surrounding the corruption (such as falsely insisting that Schwarzenegger and Nunez weren't actually political cronies), not me.
It was a minor aside. It was very obviously not the primary point of my reply. You chose to fixate on it. And you continue to do so. Seriously done with you now, chief. 👋
Just a casual, minor aside of throwing the credibility of the conviction itself into question and then the casual, minor aside of falsely suggesting they aren't cronies. 💀
I guess it's harder for you to make the argument this wasn't patently corrupt when I actually challenge you on falsehoods completely misconstruing the very nature of the corruption, huh? You'd prefer I just ignore those and let them slip by, which like I get. I'd prefer it too if every game of soccer I played had no opposing goalie, but you don't need to be so transparently salty about wanting and failing to pilot the conversation away from pointing out your BS.
Arnold absolutely sucks for what he did, I have long pointed to it as one example of why he shouldn't be so glorified for not being completely insane as other Republicans.
That said, the other poster you're talking to is in the right here, you're ignoring the point entirely.
Do you stand by YOUR comment on how crooked this is, or do you admit that you exaggerated how corrupt these people are conpared to the worst of people we know to have been corrupt?
Just answering this question. A yes i exagerated or no this is actually as bad as corruption gets are great answers if you need examples to borrow